From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22315 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2005 15:20:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22138 invoked by uid 48); 6 Jun 2005 15:20:10 -0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050606152010.22137.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "veksler at il dot ibm dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050129192214.19699.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20050129192214.19699.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/19699] [4.0/4.1 Regression] warning about not returning from end of a non-void function because of dead code X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01010.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From veksler at il dot ibm dot com 2005-06-06 15:20 ------- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > Will the patch be applied to 4.0 branch too? > No because it is too big in that it also changes the inliner to be a CFG aware inliner. In that case, it should not be marked "RESOLVED" for gcc-4.0 until: 1. either it is marked WONTFIX for gcc-4.0 2. or a new patch is written specifically for the gcc-4.0 branch. >>From comment #2 I understand that option 2 is out of the question. Does it mean that "gcc-4.0 is dead, long live gcc-4.1" ? This is how I came to this "conclusion": There are new (not very rare) regressions in gcc-4.0 that will never be fixed. These regressions will be fixed only in gcc-4.1. As a result, it sounds like gcc-4.0 is much less maintained than any other (active) branch (or trunk) at the moment. This is very different from any of the previous releases of GCC (up to gcc-2.95) If this is true, then gcc-4.1 schedule should be changed to reflect that. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19699